D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[Ovinomancer]

So I actually played in a session for that campaign just last night. And something came up that I think may be worth noting, and for different instances.
***************

First, one point of frustration I experienced as a player. Again, I was playing my ranger character. We were in battle with some hags who had kidnapped some children from the nearby towns. We'd tracked them down and located their coven's meeting place. During the ensuing battle, we managed to kill one of the two hags present. The other fled.

My ranger had cast Hunter's Mark on this hag and also has the Sharpshooter feat. These matter because as the Hag fled by swimming away through the swamp water, my turn came up and I declared that I wanted to shoot her.

The GM told me I could not attack the hag. I asked why. He advised because of the range (the hag had been on the opposite end of the battlefield as my ranger, and took the Dash action on her turn to move double speed). I reminded him that with the Sharpshooter feat, my ranger ignores disadvantage due to range, and my long bow range is 600', more than enough to still put the hag in range.

He then said it was due to not being able to see her in the water. I asked if I was allowed to attempt to track her using the Hunter's Mark spell, which would grant me advantage on either Perception or Survival skills used to track the target. He then said that because she was underwater, even if I could track her, I could not attack her.

I concluded at this point that he simply wanted her to get away. I didn't quite get why, and I haven't yet had a chance to discuss that specific point of play with him, but I plan on it. I found it to be pretty frustrating.

***********

The second instance of play involved another player and his use of his familiar. His familiar counts as a fey creature and he can dismiss it as an action, where it goes to a demiplane until resummoned on a subsequent action, when it appears within 30 feet of the caster. So he sent it out to scout an area that was beyond 100 feet, which means the caster could no longer look through its eyes. He waited a few rounds and then dismissed the familiar, placing it in the demiplane, and then resummoned it the next round.

The GM narrated that a pair of redcaps came along with it! The familiar encountered the fey, and they grabbed it, then when it was dimissed, the GM decided their fey nature allowed them to kind of piggyback along with it, and so they appeared along with it.

One or two players seemed to be a bit bothered by this. I'm curious how others feel. It seems to be totally unsupported by the rules as written, but it seems a kind of suitable outcome based on the fictional elements. I would have liked that consequence to be the result of a roll of some sort, but one was not made.

These both seem run-of-the-mill uses of GM Force. Seems pretty typical of 5e play to me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But that sort of thing can easily be shifted from action declaration resolved by a check - eg BW Wises or something similar - to an action declaration resolved by GM narration ("drama" resolution, to use Tweet's and Edwards's terminology). The declaration is I try and recall what I know about wizards' towers around here - in D&D the basis for that declaration might be training in some sort of Arcana or Lore skill, for instance - and then the GM says what it is that the PC remembers.

And this then comes right back to what I posted not far upthread:
In other words, what principles does the GM follow in establishing backstory, and framing scenes, in response to these sorts of action declarations?

As far as I know there's nothing in the D&D rulebooks that encourages, let alone requires, the GM to ignore these sorts of player-sent signals in the exercise of their authority over backstory and situation.

There kinda is, though, but it's not explicit (go figure D&D isn't explicit about how to play it!). The GM is told, time and again, that the world is theirs, that they determine what is an isn't, and that they should prepare material for use. They then get shown this in the officially printed adventures. So, yeah, GM are kinda told that they are supposed to make these decisions -- it's strongly implied at a minimum.

Now, that said, because of the aforementioned lack of explicit direction, they are not actually directly told that they have to stick to their (the GM's) ideas and cannot take player ideas as you suggest.

 

[jasper]

The problem we have in Houston is a misalignment of expectations. The solution is often for all players (including the GM) to either seek their bliss elsewhere or to find a game they can play together with aligned expectations. It's not about who is right or wrong.

Is you crazy? You want everyone at the table to have aligned expectations. Inconceivable. That would get rid of 75% of the arguments at the table. 90% of the arguments on the internet forums.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Um, yes. I follow that entirely. What doesn't happen is that this view isn't not accepted in these threads. What @Thomas Shey says is exactly what's meant by the previous term "passive." It's fully understood that these players are engaged to the point of declaring actions for their characters. When you compare this kind of play -- declaring actions only and hesitancy to drive play in other ways -- compared to play that does expect and demand players much more actively drive play, then one way possible to shorthand this is "passive." There's no real difference here other than a swap in terms. Which may, or may not, be more descriptive.

Right. So you refuse to see what the issue is and continue to describe certain playstyles derogatively. This sort of attitude is the reason why these threads often become so contentious.

Regardless, the suggestion you're not allowed to want this play is the exact opposite of pretty much every poster that's engaged in this discussion. It's not a thing.

And I did not suggest that.

Oh. Your complaint was that the stance that's not acceptable in these threads is that "passive" and "sharply bounded" are not equated?

Here, you already acknowledged earlier that you understood what I meant, so I don't know why you pretend to be confused again.

In any case I, yet again it is pretty obvious that continuing to discuss things with you is pointless.

 

[pemerton]

@FrogReaver, @Crimson Longinus

It's not uncommon in fantasy RPGing for a PC to return to somewhere where they have connections and relationships - either ones established in play, or ones that are part of a PC's background (eg the temple connection that is part of the 5e D&D Acoloyte Background; the family that is part of a AD&D OA PC's background; etc).

If a player declares, upon their PC returning to such a place, I keep my eyes open for so-and-so or I wonder what so-and-so is up to; or some more metagame-y, out-of-character thing like it would be cool to see what so-and-so is doing now - how might the GM respond?

There are a variety of options. One is that the GM makes a random roll, analogous to an encounter check, to see who might be around.

Another is that the GM references their prep - which might be living-sandbox prep - to find out what has happened to so-and-so.

Another is that the GM introduces a "free roleplaying" scene in which so-and-so and the PC catch up, and there is a mix of banter that is mostly colour, and the GM taking the opportunity to narrate backstory/setting information - this could include dropping an "adventure hook" for an adventure that the GM has prepped (and a deft GM might use the catch-up to drop the hook as an alternative to a more crude or "brute force" quest-giver or hook-drop).

Another is that the GM narrates the NPC as absent, and uses the player's action declarations to find out where the NPC is as an opportunity to reveal more backstory/setting information, again perhaps leading into a pre-planned adventure.

Another is that the GM frames the player's PC into some sort of dynamic/compelling "action" scene - eg so-and-so is being kidnapped, or is about to be hanged, or . . .; or so-and-so is angry with the PC, or rebuffs them, and the player has to engage with this if they want to maintain the PC's connection to the NPC.

Some systems put some of this stuff under direct player influence (eg BW Circles; Streetwise checks in some RPGs; contact mechanics in some RPGs, including AD&D's OA Yakuza). The degree can vary. And some don't put any of this under direct player influence - eg Prince Valiant.

The more the authority lies squarely with the GM, the more the play experience will depend on how the GM decides to exercise it. How the GM takes on board and runs with player cues. Or doesn't. Etc.

It's not as if there is nothing useful or interesting to be said about these matters!

 

[Campbell]

@hawkeyefan

The first I would have personally found irksome.

The second would not have bothered me in the slightest from a fair play perspective.

Come now, do you want to fight, or dance?

You can't have both!

Why choose?

 

[niklinna]

@hawkeyefan

The first I would have personally found irksome.

The second would not have bothered me in the slightest from a fair play perspective.


Why choose?

Ah, I see I should have linked my video inline! I'd managed to miss that that was an option. You learn something new every day.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. So you refuse to see what the issue is and continue to describe certain playstyles derogatively. This sort of attitude is the reason why these threads often become so contentious.

Is the issue now that you think this is being derogatory? Okay, that's at least some progress. I play 5e. I'm in a game running on Sundays. It's a pretty typical 5e game, where the GM is running Rime of the Frostmaiden. My play, in that game, is absolutely way more passive than my play in the Blades game I'm in, or The Between game I'm in as well. I'm 100% okay with labelling my own play, which I enjoy, this way. Doesn't bother me.

So, if derogatory is being taken, it's not intended.

Here, you already acknowledged earlier that you understood what I meant, so I don't know why you pretend to be confused again.

No, I didn't, I expressed confusion because you're all over the place on this. You've said you both agreed with @Thomas Shey's statement and were rebuking him for making it. So, yeah, it's been a hard slog to get to where you're just making the simple statement that you think "passive" is derogatory.

In any case I, yet again it is pretty obvious that continuing to discuss things with you is pointless.

Sure, this is a thinking you can have. I manage to discuss plenty of things with other people, though, so maybe amend that to be specific to you? That avoids it looking like an insult and also improves it's correctness. I know you care about these things because of the complaints you have about terminology being inexact and derogatory.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I actually played in a session for that campaign just last night. And something came up that I think may be worth noting, and for different instances.
***************

First, one point of frustration I experienced as a player. Again, I was playing my ranger character. We were in battle with some hags who had kidnapped some children from the nearby towns. We'd tracked them down and located their coven's meeting place. During the ensuing battle, we managed to kill one of the two hags present. The other fled.

My ranger had cast Hunter's Mark on this hag and also has the Sharpshooter feat. These matter because as the Hag fled by swimming away through the swamp water, my turn came up and I declared that I wanted to shoot her.

The GM told me I could not attack the hag. I asked why. He advised because of the range (the hag had been on the opposite end of the battlefield as my ranger, and took the Dash action on her turn to move double speed). I reminded him that with the Sharpshooter feat, my ranger ignores disadvantage due to range, and my long bow range is 600', more than enough to still put the hag in range.

He then said it was due to not being able to see her in the water. I asked if I was allowed to attempt to track her using the Hunter's Mark spell, which would grant me advantage on either Perception or Survival skills used to track the target. He then said that because she was underwater, even if I could track her, I could not attack her.

I concluded at this point that he simply wanted her to get away. I didn't quite get why, and I haven't yet had a chance to discuss that specific point of play with him, but I plan on it. I found it to be pretty frustrating.

***********

At minimum, this seems like a hella clumsy. Though it also kinda depends on how distances are normally handled (was there a battlemap?) If distances are always handled somewhat abstractly, then this might be more understandable. Though coming up bunch of reasons why you couldn't attack seems like BS either way. Better hope that if your characters ever need to flee the GM handles that with equal generosity!

The second instance of play involved another player and his use of his familiar. His familiar counts as a fey creature and he can dismiss it as an action, where it goes to a demiplane until resummoned on a subsequent action, when it appears within 30 feet of the caster. So he sent it out to scout an area that was beyond 100 feet, which means the caster could no longer look through its eyes. He waited a few rounds and then dismissed the familiar, placing it in the demiplane, and then resummoned it the next round.

The GM narrated that a pair of redcaps came along with it! The familiar encountered the fey, and they grabbed it, then when it was dimissed, the GM decided their fey nature allowed them to kind of piggyback along with it, and so they appeared along with it.

One or two players seemed to be a bit bothered by this. I'm curious how others feel. It seems to be totally unsupported by the rules as written, but it seems a kind of suitable outcome based on the fictional elements. I would have liked that consequence to be the result of a roll of some sort, but one was not made.

This is just weird. But I guess it is kinda funny. Rules really don't work like this, but I can see the GM thinking that this would make metaphysical and narrative sense.

From these and your earlier example I get the impression that your GM thinks more in sense of 'would this be a cool scene' and 'how this would go in a book/movie' and might not be that concerned with what the rules actually say. Cool standoff with the soldiers, an enemy flees so that they can become a recurring villain, the fae cause unexpected and weird hijinks. Not necessarily a problem, but if there are mismatch of expectations then it is. Also, an issue with this sort of thinking is that the GM might get too enamoured with certain scenes happening, which leads to railroadyness.

 

[Lanefan]

...your character recalls that Evard's tower is in the area ...

Apropos of nothing, given the amount of times it comes up in discussion does anyone else think that damn tower is well on its way to becoming the most famous landmark in all of RPGing?